They can be very charismatic too and fun to be around if they are in the right mood, but can turn on you emotionally. They are like "Emotional Black Holes" (Forget if I said that already). But emotionally what you put in is not returned.

Others with empathy feel good when they help others (which is ultimately selfish, I admit I'm an irrational hypocrite!)

But yea, sociopaths are abundant and tend to gravitate toward CEO jobs, politics, and any position of power. Perhaps we need them though to do our dirty work and fire people and make tough decisions, but I will never trust them! Especially politicians and dictators.

Very rarely is one of them well-liked.

(But a detached emotion, and empathy from things can actually be a good thing in the right place and time)

(Came back and posted another thought:)One of my favorite Star Trek characters was DATA. He's the android Pinocchio, who just wants to be human and questions the idea of friendship objectively. And is incapable of mourning when someone dies. He is a sociopath with no empathy, yet an innocent child we all love. And wouldn't hurt a fly!

Then you have Lore! His brother! Complete sociopath! (both equally have no empathy.... it was just the programming)

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Going back to the main topic, I just thought of a good example about how being well-liked or not, doesn't mean you are not passionate and loving.

Chef Gordon Ramsay!

My personality is a complete opposite and actually went to culinary school back in 2004 and met many of those types, but they were simply being perfectionists. (I left that college course and dropped out.... I couldn't take it as an INFP personality even though I still cook and love experiments and still have a passion, I couldn't take that Kitchen Brigade, Army Atmosphere!)

But they are good people, even if not well-liked. At least Ramsay is genuine.

(By the way, we can find another practical use for lucid dreaming in this topic. Sociopaths, psychopaths, serial killers, they are truly more abundant in society than people realize. They feel the need to hurt and kill things, to inflict cruelty onto other living things, but also may be able to recognize this as unacceptable behavior in our society. Thus they can find a release in killing dream characters harmlessly. Like Summerlander said, no one can technically be held accountable for anything because of the nonexistence of free will, so sociopaths can't be looked upon with disdain or hatred, as long as they're not actually causing any harm to society. They can learn to lucid dream and kill people in a virtual reality. Like in the TV show "Dexter," in which a sociopath finds a morally-sound release in killing other serial killers and murderers. Just another way that lucid dreaming could improve society exponentially if it was implemented into mainstream popularity and maybe even if it was taught to children in school.)

wholeheartedly agree, Deschain! We may think we have free will but the fact is that brain disorders can trump the best intentions of the mind. (This is something pointed out in "The Moral Landscape" by neuroscientist Sam Harris.)

In a similar vein, we are not responsible for our genome and the numerous environmental factors that influence our actions. Authorship simply cannot be imputed to the conscious self when thoughts, emotions and actions have unconscious origins.

The recognition that nobody, not even psychos, are truly culpable, is a step towards a deeper, more consistent, and more compassionate view of our common humanity. If anything, the deterministic truth, in a way, offers true justice and teaches us to be more morally just. It improves and restores our humanity.

It appears that those who invoke punishment on the basis of a strong illusion such as free will are the ones who take a step backwards towards dehumanisation. If there was a cure for psychopathy based on neural manipulation, would it be just to deny it toa serial killer as a form of punishment? Absolutely not. It makes no sense. At the moment, sure, serial killers need to be incarcerated for our protection as much as theirs. One day, however, science may solve the problem of "human evil."

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

The second is about Charles Whitman (thanks for reminding me of his name but your info is incorrect and a "friend's" testimony, if there ever was one, is unreliable and therefore unscientific to assume it is true). And no, the case is most certainly not a "scientific hoax." (Where did you hear that?)

"Post-mortem autopsy of his brain revealed a glioblastoma multiforme tumor the size of a walnut, erupting from beneath the thalamus, impacting the hypothalamus, extending into the temporal lobe and compressing the amygdaloid nucleus (Charles J. Whitman Catastrophe, Medical Aspects. Report to Governor, 9/8/66)."

http://brainmind.com/Case5.html

My info is correct Summerland. Their was only one autopsy performed on Whitman. Here's a link to it http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/whitman,%20charles_report.pdf

Here's an exact quote from it “ In the middle part of the brain, above the red nucleus, in the white matter below the gray center thalamus, is a fairly well outlined tumor about 2x1 .5x1 cm in dimensions, grayish-yellow, with peripheral areas of red as blood.” - Dr. Coloman de Chenar.

Here's an actual quote from the press release of Governor Connelly's commission investigating the cause of Whitman's running amuck

“ 4. Glioblastoma multiforme (sections of two pieces of tumor reportedly removed from the right temporo-occipital white matter by Dr. de Chenar on August 2, 1968)....

7. Multiple wounds of the body.

The malignant tumor removed from the brain by Dr. [Coloman] de Chenar microscopically exhibited the features of a glioblastoma multiforme with a remarkable vascular malformation. It contained widespread areas of necrosis with palisading of cells characteristic of glioblastoma multiforme.

No evidence of other disease or previous trauma was observed although the destruction of the brain by gunshot wounds was so extensive that anatomic relationships could not be completely evaluated and the examination of all the major nerve tracks and nuclei of the brain was impossible.” - Press Conference, Medical Aspects, Charles J. Whitman Catastrophe, page 7

Link to it http://alt.cimedia.com/statesman/specialreports/whitman/findings.pdf

The friend's eyewitness testimony was recorded in a report by the FBI that was classified, but partially out under the freedom of information act request. It had vials of dexedrine on him when he was killed, which further confirms "the eating them like popcorn" quote. He was taking dexedrine and valium at the same time under prescriptions. Links to side effects

http://www.rxlist.com/valium-side-effects-drug-center.htm

http://www.rxlist.com/dexedrine-side-effects-drug-center.htm

Incidentally it was the psychiatrist whom reported that he was a young muscular man seething with anger and talking about wanting to kill people by shooting them from the university of Texas at Austin tower whom put him on dexedrine! I'll go out on a limb and speculate that the FBI both had a report on Whitman and classified it because he was an early test subject of the CIA's MKUltra program. Whether that is correct or not, he certainly was a victim of psychiatric malpractice and is part of a long list of people victimized by trying to cure people with drugs. Another link http://www.ssristories.org/

Governor Connelly rejecting the autopsy report and seeking proof that 'Whitman's brain tumor did it' and the use of Whitman as evidence that a defective brain caused his behavior were the hoaxes involved. There's no evident that "pressure on the amygdala" causes anything. The idea is completely "unscientific" The hoaxers are taking an hypothesis as a fact and then trying to gather evidence for it - the very essence of being unscientific.

"There is only one God and his name is Death.And there is only one thing we say to death "not today"- Syrio Forel

Conspiracy theories, Snaggle. You are heeding the wrong sources there. But what does it matter? My point has been made regardless of tumours or drugs in the brain. Free will is an incoherent concept and has no place in our universe. (Unless you can show me a genuine instance of free will?) I think we'll leave it there, buddy.

The fact that there is no free will, as I was saying before, can help us to be more humanistic and bring us closer together. While nobody can really be credited for their achievements, praise can be given as a means to show respect and turning us all into well liked people. And the truth is that nobody can be blamed for anything whilst we encourage everyone on the right path.

Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century English philosopher and the first political theorist, harbingered political science with his masterpiece “Leviathan.” This book, having been published a few years after the English civil war, highlights social mores that urge its readers to obey the state for the sake of peace and may be partly responsible for the survival of monarchy in the UK today. The book doesn’t go without criticism. In “The History of Western Philosophy,” Bertrand Russell points out, in complete contrast to Hobbes’s submissiveness to the state, that governments need some fear of rebellion as a means to forestall tyranny (as this one can be so bad as to make anarchy more desirable). Russell brings our attention to the fact that Hobbes appears to make the assumption that everybody shares the same interests, dismissing the clash between different social classes - a detail which Karl Marx so eloquently addressed - and the solution to prevent anarchy which should have been obvious to the Royalist philosopher was the sharing of power, not its total ascription to the sovereign. Nevertheless, Hobbes was a real anachronism in what he proposed.

Hobbes was an early proponent of egalitarianism within a social contract. He advocated civility, community, and endorsed monarchy as the best political state and the only political prophylactic device capable of safeguarding us from the excogitation of anarchy and its perils. Hobbes believed that people are inherently prone to cruelty because they are selfish - thus his insistence that mankind needs governments and laws to keep it in check. Without such control, morality dwindles down. This view was in opposition to the views of Aristotle - who saw the natural state of human beings as largely altruistic, compassionate, and communal in social terms, and believed this to vindicate monarchy as an inevitable corollary.

Hobbes had a materialist outlook on life in which everything could be explained by mechanisms and motion. (He was strongly influenced and impressed by the works of Galileo and Keppler.) At the same time, Hobbes didn’t see the scientific method as wholly reliable on the basis of subjective heterogeneity (a diversity of observers is involved). For him, geometry is “the only true science so far created.” (These are the opinions of one enlightened man during the Scientific Revolution.)

Hobbes used his rationality to criticise superstition and religious doctrine, too. For example, as a determinist and subscriber of Heraclitus’ vision of impermanence in reality, he pointed out that without free will divine punishment makes no sense. He derided Descartes’ dualism, and, as a man who also translated Homer’s literature, asserted that “the legends of the Gentiles came from failing to distinguish dreams from waking life” and that “beliefs that dreams are prophetic, and that ghosts and witchcraft are real, are delusions.” (These quotations may be slightly paraphrased.)

I believe Thomas Hobbes was an atheist, too. The accusation of disbelieving in an almighty creator had been made, and, in order to protect himself, Hobbes claimed to follow the traducianism of Tertullian - the founder of Western theology who professed God to be of a corporeal nature. The truth, as I strongly suspect, is that Hobbes was terrified of the “heretic” label (in the 17th century, charges of heresy and profanity were was as bad as accusations of rape and paedophilia). This can be inferred when, in 1666 (after the Great Fire), the House of Commons legislated against atheistic and blasphemous manuscripts - mentioning Hobbes’s “Leviathan” as a prime example. Sensing danger ahead, Hobbes went as far as burning some of his compromising written work. This strikes me as a man who was limited in fighting for what he believed to be right and didn’t have it in him to go against the dissenting majority.

But then again, it could be argued that, when the House of Commons publicly expressed its anti-atheism, it was in Hobbes's best interests to be seen by the majority as a well liked person. Doing nothing towards this goal and confirming his opprobrium could mean the difference between life and a violent death.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."